[PPT] - Language Access in CA Elections, Past & Future FOCE Conference PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Meeting the Needs of a Diversifying Electorate: Language Access in CA Elections, Past & Future

FOCE Conference 2017

SLIDE 2

Need for Language Assistance During Elections

2

Language is a significant barrier to the ability of many to vote

CA Latinos CA Asian Americans Speak a language

ther than English at

home

75% 76%

Limited English proficient

34% 36%

SLIDE 3

Language Assistance During Elections Under Federal Law

§203 of the VRA

–Written and oral assistance when language group reaches threshold size and has high rate of English illiteracy –Analysis every 5 years (Dec 2016)

§208 of the VRA

–Voters who are unable to read/write have a right to bring helper of choice

3

SLIDE 4

Language Assistance Under Section 203 (Federal Law)

Election officials must provide:

translations of written materials that are generally provided to

voters (including the mailing of election materials to voters who request assistance)

oral assistance at poll sites
pre-election publicity of the language assistance

4

SLIDE 5

Language Assistance During Elections Under California Law

Elections Code §14201

–Posted translated “facsimile” copy of ballot w/instructions for language groups reaching threshold size –No requirement to mail to voters –Analysis every Jan. of a gubernatorial election (Dec 2013)

Elections Code §12303

–Oral assistance –Analysis every Jan. of a gubernatorial election (Dec 2013)

5

SLIDE 6

Language Access Coverage in California

All but 2 counties are covered by one or both
Section 203 coverage:

– 27 counties

26 for Spanish
9 for at least 1 Asian language
2 for Native American languages
State Elections Code coverage:

– 50 counties

6

SLIDE 7

Importance of Language Assistance in Asian American Communities

Use of language assistance in Los Angeles

– 32% of Asian Americans

Use by ethnicity in Los Angeles

– 11% Filipino Americans – 46% Chinese Americans – 50% Korean Americans

7

SLIDE 8

1. Community Education/Outreach 2. Meetings with Registrar of Voters 3. Advocacy for Best Practices 4. Poll Monitoring

AAAJ-CA’s Work in 2016

SLIDE 9

9

Where We Worked

Rank County Pop. 1 Los Angeles County 10,170,292 2 San Diego County 3,299,521 3 Orange County 3,169,776 4 Riverside County 2,361,026 5 San Bernardino County 2,128,133 6 Santa Clara County 1,918,044 7 Alameda County 1,638,215 8 Sacramento County 1,501,335 9 Contra Costa County 1,126,745 10 Fresno County 974,861 11 Kern County 882,176 12 San Francisco County 864,816 13 Ventura County 850,536 14 San Mateo County 765,135 15 San Joaquin County 726,106 16 Stanislaus County 538,388 17 Sonoma County 502,146 18 Tulare County 459,863 19 Santa Barbara County 444,769 20 Solano County 436,092

2016 26 counties 34.9 million people 89% of California

SLIDE 10

1. Distributed Know Your

Voting Rights (KYVR) materials created by Advancing Justice in 13 languages.

2. Hosted KYVR trainings and

first-time voter workshops.

3. Connected CBOs and

community leaders with county elections offices.

4. Recruited volunteers for

poll monitoring.

Community Education and Outreach

Partnered with 20 community-based organizations (CBOs), each serving

ne or more minority language community in counties of focus.

SLIDE 11

Meetings with ROVs

Inquired into language access practices, including:
Compliance with federal & state law requirements
Use of best practices
Legal requirements: Corrected and nudged as

needed.

Best practices: Collected innovative ideas from

counties & advocated for their wider use.

SLIDE 12

Best Practices Advocacy

Counties have considerable discretion when

meeting federal & state law requirements. Practices vary.

Advancing Justice created suite of best practices

w/ NALEO. Shared with every county.

Hosted two webinars w/ NALEO.
Acted as hub of wheel, sharing example docs

across counties and regions.

SLIDE 13

Yolo County in June 2016 primary:

13 of 16 polling places missing facsimiles.
Facsimiles in need of improvement.

Limited Poll Monitoring – June ‘16 The Yolo Turnaround

Action taken: Initiated relationship w/ ROV Salinas, shared info about legal requirements and best practices. Partnered through change management. Yolo County in November 2016 general:

Top performer: 3 out of 71 facsimiles missing (4.2%)
Facsimiles improved.
Two best practices implemented.

SLIDE 14

Jesse Salinas

Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters Yolo County

SLIDE 15

SLIDE 16

SLIDE 17

SLIDE 18

Youth Development and Community Outreach

7 staff members
Work focused in:

–Kern, Fresno, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Sutter, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties

25 high school

chapters

8 collegiate chapters

SLIDE 19

Transformation in 2016

Distributing KYR

materials in English/Punjabi

Hosted educational

workshops with AAAJ in Fresno, Merced, and Sutter Counties

Recruited 35 poll

monitors in 4 counties

SLIDE 20

A Community Under Siege

SLIDE 21

A Community Developing Power

SLIDE 22

Much Work to Do

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Hindi Punjabi

SLIDE 23

Sneak Peak: Advancing Justice’s Poll Monitoring Results November 2016

Final report coming April 2017

SLIDE 24

SLIDE 25

Compliance with most significant language access requirement in Section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act -- provision of translated ballots -- was very strong. Less success in consistently providing translated copies of supplementary materials voters may need to vote. (State Voter Guide, County Sample Ballot, and Voter Bill of Rights)

1896 68

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Expected Missing

Section 203 Ballots

3.6% 3.6%

896 196

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Polling places requiring Section 203 supplementary materials Polling places missing at least one Section 203 supplementary material

Sec. 203 Supplementary

Materials

22%

SLIDE 26

948 234

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

# expected # missing

Facsimile Ballots

25%

CA elections officials struggled to meet the primary requirement in the state law: provision of a translated copy

f the ballot (aka “facsimile

ballot”) at specified polling places. In some large, diverse counties, 40+% of facsimile ballots were missing. Some poll workers had difficulty identifying and posting a facsimile when asked, admitting in some cases they did not know what the facsimile ballot was.

SLIDE 27

1,011 83

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Polling places visited Polling places lacking BPW

Bilingual Poll Workers (BPW)

8.2%

799 496

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Targeted # of poll workers under Section 12303(c)

Sec. 12303(c) bilingual poll

workers missing

BPW Speaking State Law Languages

62% Recruitment of BPW

verall was very strong.

Recruitment of BPW who spoke languages covered by state law was weak.

SLIDE 28

Best Practices

928 296

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Polling places with bilingual poll workers Polling places with BPW in which BPW not wearing name tags identifying language skills

BPW Nametags

32%

711 281

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Polling places with BPW, AAAJ-ALC counties Polling places with BPW in which no signage identifying language skills

BPW Signage

40%

540 221

100 200 300 400 500 600 Polling places with facsimiles, AAAJ- ALC counties Polling places with facsimiles in which no signage indicates availability

Facsimile Ballot Signage

41%

Bilingual poll workers are inconsistently identified for voters

who need them.

Signage that would alert voters to presence of facsimile ballots

not used in uniform way.

SLIDE 29

California May Have a Previously Unrecognized Voter ID Problem

41 polling places visited had some kind of Voter ID

problem (3.2%).

One county had Voter ID problems at 10% of polling
places. Several others were almost 5%.

Motives vary, but do not matter:

Intent to disenfranchise. (?)
Mistaken but good faith belief they are safe-guarding

the integrity of election.

Convenience/efficiency in finding voters on roster.
Difficult to spell/understand name.

SLIDE 30

Federal law compliance was solid.
State law compliance needs

improvement and was much worse that federal law compliance.

Truth is: state law’s language access

requirements must be improved to adequately serve LEP voters.

In Summary

SLIDE 31

Consider the facsimile ballot:

1. State law does not require any information be

provided to voters in advance of ED about what facsimile ballots are and where to find them.

2. State law does not require translated signage in

polling places to guide voters to facsimiles.

3. State law does not require poll worker training about

facsimiles.

4. Even if facsimile is found, voter has to vote on

English ballot while standing at wall or kiosk. Private vote denied.

5. Facsimiles unavailable to vote-by-mail voters.

Opportunities for Improvement In State Law’s Requirements

SLIDE 32

To ensure California’s democracy expands as the state’s size and diversity grow:

Voters should get information about facsimiles in advance.
Facsimile ballots’ value to in-person voters should be

improved.

Facsimile ballots should be available to vote-by-mail voters.
Bilingual poll workers should be more clearly identified for

the voters who need them.

Bilingual poll workers speaking languages covered by the

state law should be recruited more effectively.